FairyTales of Global Warming..

[westwall]

I really enjoy listening to Sen. James Inhofe talk about global climate change. He's a very funny guy, a laugh a minute, a comic genius, a laugh riot.

He's almost as funny as listening to your hysterical doom and gloomers. I don't think I've heard as many tall tales as those since Bugs Bunny!

 

[Discombobulated]

Amazing how many self proclaimed experts there are out there these days. Good thing we have people like that to validate and confirm actual science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Amazing how many self proclaimed experts there are out there these days. Good thing we have people like that to validate and confirm actual science.

Ya mean like when the Prez gets up in front of the cameras and lies his ass off with a statement to the effect of " and the warming is accelerating at a rate that even the models didn't predict".. You mean "REAL SCIENTISTS need to check shit like that?

Or govt agencies start telling you that current weather events are due to Global Warming and hurricanes/tornadoes/snow/drought are ALL caused by 0.5degC rise in you lifetime? Or when even NBC and CBS start fabricating FICTIONAL tales of Global Warming like the topic of this thread?

You're gonna need a trainload of scientists to wrestle down all those whoppers..

OR --- you could do it yourself -- assuming you're not lazy..
Welcome to USMB -- BTW...

 

[flacaltenn]

I really enjoy listening to Sen. James Inhofe talk about global climate change. He's a very funny guy, a laugh a minute, a comic genius, a laugh riot.

You have low comedic standards. Ever hear Rep Henry Waxman talk about the tundra floating away? What do you expect from the mental midgets that pretend they are experts at running every aspect of your life?

 

[Discombobulated]

Amazing how many self proclaimed experts there are out there these days. Good thing we have people like that to validate and confirm actual science.

Ya mean like when the Prez gets up in front of the cameras and lies his ass off with a statement to the effect of " and the warming is accelerating at a rate that even the models didn't predict".. You mean "REAL SCIENTISTS need to check shit like that?

Or govt agencies start telling you that current weather events are due to Global Warming and hurricanes/tornadoes/snow/drought are ALL caused by 0.5degC rise in you lifetime? Or when even NBC and CBS start fabricating FICTIONAL tales of Global Warming like the topic of this thread?

You're gonna need a trainload of scientists to wrestle down all those whoppers..

OR --- you could do it yourself -- assuming you're not lazy..
Welcome to USMB -- BTW...

How would another self proclaimed expert even begin to know the difference between actual science and a whopper? Was it vetted by the fair and balanced folks at FOX News or what?

 

[IanC]

Amazing how many self proclaimed experts there are out there these days. Good thing we have people like that to validate and confirm actual science.

Ya mean like when the Prez gets up in front of the cameras and lies his ass off with a statement to the effect of " and the warming is accelerating at a rate that even the models didn't predict".. You mean "REAL SCIENTISTS need to check shit like that?

Or govt agencies start telling you that current weather events are due to Global Warming and hurricanes/tornadoes/snow/drought are ALL caused by 0.5degC rise in you lifetime? Or when even NBC and CBS start fabricating FICTIONAL tales of Global Warming like the topic of this thread?

You're gonna need a trainload of scientists to wrestle down all those whoppers..

OR --- you could do it yourself -- assuming you're not lazy..
Welcome to USMB -- BTW...

How would another self proclaimed expert even begin to know the difference between actual science and a whopper? Was it vetted by the fair and balanced folks at FOX News or what?

Hi, welcome.

If you are actually interested in finding out why we skeptics are suspicious of many climate science claims then you should investigate some of the skeptical websites. Climate Audit is a good place to start and I guarantee you will learn a lot of the methodologies of climate science. Bishop Hill and WUWT have topical articles. Without hearing several sides of the story you cannot make an Informed decision.

 

[westwall]

Ya mean like when the Prez gets up in front of the cameras and lies his ass off with a statement to the effect of " and the warming is accelerating at a rate that even the models didn't predict".. You mean "REAL SCIENTISTS need to check shit like that?

Or govt agencies start telling you that current weather events are due to Global Warming and hurricanes/tornadoes/snow/drought are ALL caused by 0.5degC rise in you lifetime? Or when even NBC and CBS start fabricating FICTIONAL tales of Global Warming like the topic of this thread?

You're gonna need a trainload of scientists to wrestle down all those whoppers..

OR --- you could do it yourself -- assuming you're not lazy..
Welcome to USMB -- BTW...

How would another self proclaimed expert even begin to know the difference between actual science and a whopper? Was it vetted by the fair and balanced folks at FOX News or what?

Hi, welcome.

If you are actually interested in finding out why we skeptics are suspicious of many climate science claims then you should investigate some of the skeptical websites. Climate Audit is a good place to start and I guarantee you will learn a lot of the methodologies of climate science. Bishop Hill and WUWT have topical articles. Without hearing several sides of the story you cannot make an Informed decision.

The globull warming faithful don't want to hear other opinions. It's blasphemy....

 

[Discombobulated]

Ya mean like when the Prez gets up in front of the cameras and lies his ass off with a statement to the effect of " and the warming is accelerating at a rate that even the models didn't predict".. You mean "REAL SCIENTISTS need to check shit like that?

Or govt agencies start telling you that current weather events are due to Global Warming and hurricanes/tornadoes/snow/drought are ALL caused by 0.5degC rise in you lifetime? Or when even NBC and CBS start fabricating FICTIONAL tales of Global Warming like the topic of this thread?

You're gonna need a trainload of scientists to wrestle down all those whoppers..

OR --- you could do it yourself -- assuming you're not lazy..
Welcome to USMB -- BTW...

How would another self proclaimed expert even begin to know the difference between actual science and a whopper? Was it vetted by the fair and balanced folks at FOX News or what?

Hi, welcome.

If you are actually interested in finding out why we skeptics are suspicious of many climate science claims then you should investigate some of the skeptical websites. Climate Audit is a good place to start and I guarantee you will learn a lot of the methodologies of climate science. Bishop Hill and WUWT have topical articles. Without hearing several sides of the story you cannot make an Informed decision.

No doubt good places to find opinions on science. How opinions mitigate facts I have yet to discover. I'd be much more interested in learning exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works. Who's behind it and why? And where is the evidence of this fiendish plot to subvert the truth.....how do they cover their tracks so well?

 

[Discombobulated]

I really enjoy listening to Sen. James Inhofe talk about global climate change. He's a very funny guy, a laugh a minute, a comic genius, a laugh riot.

You have low comedic standards. Ever hear Rep Henry Waxman talk about the tundra floating away? What do you expect from the mental midgets that pretend they are experts at running every aspect of your life?

Louie Gohmert is my favorite comedian, that guy was born to do comedy.

 

[westwall]

How would another self proclaimed expert even begin to know the difference between actual science and a whopper? Was it vetted by the fair and balanced folks at FOX News or what?

Hi, welcome.

If you are actually interested in finding out why we skeptics are suspicious of many climate science claims then you should investigate some of the skeptical websites. Climate Audit is a good place to start and I guarantee you will learn a lot of the methodologies of climate science. Bishop Hill and WUWT have topical articles. Without hearing several sides of the story you cannot make an Informed decision.

No doubt good places to find opinions on science. How opinions mitigate facts I have yet to discover. I'd be much more interested in learning exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works. Who's behind it and why? And where is the evidence of this fiendish plot to subvert the truth.....how do they cover their tracks so well?

You mean like this shining example of how the climate mafia has corrupted the peer review process? Until you acknowledge that this is unethical (and IMO criminal) and a violation of the scientific method then your statements of innocence are ridiculous at best.



"cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, p.jones@uea.act.csiro.au, k.briffa@uea.act.csiro.au, d.wratt@niwa.co.nz, andy.reisinger@mfe.govt.nz
date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:41:38 +1000
from: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au
subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Rese
to: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate
Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one
who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give
the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge
should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than
publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees
that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of
statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing
the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics,
but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of
stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be
whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously
with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived.

On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de
Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with.
I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which
gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it
was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a
reviewer.


Cheers,

Barrie Pittock."

 

[Discombobulated]

Hi, welcome.

If you are actually interested in finding out why we skeptics are suspicious of many climate science claims then you should investigate some of the skeptical websites. Climate Audit is a good place to start and I guarantee you will learn a lot of the methodologies of climate science. Bishop Hill and WUWT have topical articles. Without hearing several sides of the story you cannot make an Informed decision.

No doubt good places to find opinions on science. How opinions mitigate facts I have yet to discover. I'd be much more interested in learning exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works. Who's behind it and why? And where is the evidence of this fiendish plot to subvert the truth.....how do they cover their tracks so well?

You mean like this shining example of how the climate mafia has corrupted the peer review process? Until you acknowledge that this is unethical (and IMO criminal) and a violation of the scientific method then your statements of innocence are ridiculous at best.



"cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, p.jones@uea.act.csiro.au, k.briffa@uea.act.csiro.au, d.wratt@niwa.co.nz, andy.reisinger@mfe.govt.nz
date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:41:38 +1000
from: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au
subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Rese
to: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate
Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one
who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give
the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge
should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than
publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees
that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of
statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing
the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics,
but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of
stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be
whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously
with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived.

On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de
Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with.
I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which
gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it
was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a
reviewer.


Cheers,

Barrie Pittock."

So then you must have some plausible theories about how this world wide conspiracy works.

 

[Dot Com]

I really enjoy listening to Sen. James Inhofe talk about global climate change. He's a very funny guy, a laugh a minute, a comic genius, a laugh riot.

You have low comedic standards. Ever hear Rep Henry Waxman talk about the tundra floating away? What do you expect from the mental midgets that pretend they are experts at running every aspect of your life?

Louie Gohmert is my favorite comedian, that guy was born to do comedy.

I agree. Wonder why all Establ Repubs are deniers. Could it be they're in the pockets of Big Oil among other large monied interests?

 

[Mr. H.]

You have low comedic standards. Ever hear Rep Henry Waxman talk about the tundra floating away? What do you expect from the mental midgets that pretend they are experts at running every aspect of your life?

Louie Gohmert is my favorite comedian, that guy was born to do comedy.

I agree. Wonder why all Establ Repubs are deniers. Could it be they're in the pockets of Big Oil among other large monied interests?

"Big Oil" is the largest private enterprise investor in alternative energy research and development.

 

[Discombobulated]

You have low comedic standards. Ever hear Rep Henry Waxman talk about the tundra floating away? What do you expect from the mental midgets that pretend they are experts at running every aspect of your life?

Louie Gohmert is my favorite comedian, that guy was born to do comedy.

I agree. Wonder why all Establ Repubs are deniers. Could it be they're in the pockets of Big Oil among other large monied interests?

Exactly what their little conspiracy theories are designed to preempt..... the obvious fact that the other 3% of climate scientists are nothing more than shills paid by multi national corporations.

 

[IanC]

How would another self proclaimed expert even begin to know the difference between actual science and a whopper? Was it vetted by the fair and balanced folks at FOX News or what?

Hi, welcome.

If you are actually interested in finding out why we skeptics are suspicious of many climate science claims then you should investigate some of the skeptical websites. Climate Audit is a good place to start and I guarantee you will learn a lot of the methodologies of climate science. Bishop Hill and WUWT have topical articles. Without hearing several sides of the story you cannot make an Informed decision.

No doubt good places to find opinions on science. How opinions mitigate facts I have yet to discover. I'd be much more interested in learning exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works. Who's behind it and why? And where is the evidence of this fiendish plot to subvert the truth.....how do they cover their tracks so well?

Hahahaha. Sorry, I thought you actually wanted to know the weaknesses in climate science that cause people to become skeptical. McIntyre is a statistician and his criticisms of paleoreconstructions are valid. If you want to keep on believing in Mann's upside down proxies, etc then that is your business. Just don't say that your science is pure and uncontested.

 

[westwall]

No doubt good places to find opinions on science. How opinions mitigate facts I have yet to discover. I'd be much more interested in learning exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works. Who's behind it and why? And where is the evidence of this fiendish plot to subvert the truth.....how do they cover their tracks so well?

You mean like this shining example of how the climate mafia has corrupted the peer review process? Until you acknowledge that this is unethical (and IMO criminal) and a violation of the scientific method then your statements of innocence are ridiculous at best.



"cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, p.jones@uea.act.csiro.au, k.briffa@uea.act.csiro.au, d.wratt@niwa.co.nz, andy.reisinger@mfe.govt.nz
date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:41:38 +1000
from: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au
subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Rese
to: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate
Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one
who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give
the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge
should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than
publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees
that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of
statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing
the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics,
but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of
stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be
whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously
with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived.

On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de
Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with.
I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which
gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it
was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a
reviewer.


Cheers,

Barrie Pittock."

So then you must have some plausible theories about how this world wide conspiracy works.

Tell us what the result of the corruption of the peer review process does for the climate mafia? Then also tell us how the corruption of the peer review process doesn't have catastrophic effects on how the general public views science in general.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I believe it hasn't warmed since 1998. If we seen any warming at all we'd wouldn't be threatening records from 1998, 2005 and 2010 right now. Fact.

Now, rather it is warming or not, doesn't change the reality that I support solar energy.

 

[Discombobulated]

You mean like this shining example of how the climate mafia has corrupted the peer review process? Until you acknowledge that this is unethical (and IMO criminal) and a violation of the scientific method then your statements of innocence are ridiculous at best.



"cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, p.jones@uea.act.csiro.au, k.briffa@uea.act.csiro.au, d.wratt@niwa.co.nz, andy.reisinger@mfe.govt.nz
date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:41:38 +1000
from: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au
subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Rese
to: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate
Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one
who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give
the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge
should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than
publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees
that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of
statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing
the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics,
but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of
stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be
whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously
with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived.

On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de
Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with.
I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which
gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it
was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a
reviewer.


Cheers,

Barrie Pittock."

So then you must have some plausible theories about how this world wide conspiracy works.

Tell us what the result of the corruption of the peer review process does for the climate mafia? Then also tell us how the corruption of the peer review process doesn't have catastrophic effects on how the general public views science in general.

Climate mafia? I have no idea what that means.

 

[SSDD]

How would another self proclaimed expert even begin to know the difference between actual science and a whopper? Was it vetted by the fair and balanced folks at FOX News or what?

Hi, welcome.

If you are actually interested in finding out why we skeptics are suspicious of many climate science claims then you should investigate some of the skeptical websites. Climate Audit is a good place to start and I guarantee you will learn a lot of the methodologies of climate science. Bishop Hill and WUWT have topical articles. Without hearing several sides of the story you cannot make an Informed decision.

No doubt good places to find opinions on science. How opinions mitigate facts I have yet to discover. I'd be much more interested in learning exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works. Who's behind it and why? And where is the evidence of this fiendish plot to subvert the truth.....how do they cover their tracks so well?

You might start by examining the clear and undeniable evidence of tampering with the temperature record. Insertion of a warm bias into the temperature record is not opinion...it is an undeniable fact...undeniable by everyone except brainwashed cultists that is.

 

[SSDD]

No doubt good places to find opinions on science. How opinions mitigate facts I have yet to discover. I'd be much more interested in learning exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works. Who's behind it and why? And where is the evidence of this fiendish plot to subvert the truth.....how do they cover their tracks so well?

You mean like this shining example of how the climate mafia has corrupted the peer review process? Until you acknowledge that this is unethical (and IMO criminal) and a violation of the scientific method then your statements of innocence are ridiculous at best.



"cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, p.jones@uea.act.csiro.au, k.briffa@uea.act.csiro.au, d.wratt@niwa.co.nz, andy.reisinger@mfe.govt.nz
date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:41:38 +1000
from: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au
subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Rese
to: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate
Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one
who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give
the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge
should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than
publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees
that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of
statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing
the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics,
but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of
stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be
whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously
with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived.

On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de
Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with.
I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which
gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it
was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a
reviewer.


Cheers,

Barrie Pittock."

So then you must have some plausible theories about how this world wide conspiracy works.

Not so much a conscious conspiracy as a tragic error cascade which progresses fueled on money and power. When you want to know why anything happens, one only need follow the money.